The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)–global guardian of trademarks and patents–is cracking down on the use of so-called masculine terminology in its communications and documentation.
Out go such words as ‘forefathers,’ ‘lumberjack,’ and ‘cavemen,’ and the phrase ‘brotherhood of man.’ In comes a series of stretched neologisms, with all the charm of something thrown together by committee—if not by a veterinarian trying to reassemble animals amid a butcher’s shop window display.
Despite widespread mockery, the process of eliminating ‘problematic’ words also has a sinister side. The Geneva-based organisation’s new Guidelines on inclusive language document claims that using “masculine-specific” terms risks giving the impression that “women are not represented in certain groups or do not possess certain skills.”
According to Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union
This is precisely what George Orwell warned us about. Banning certain words and phrases to advance a dogmatic political ideology is a hallmark of totalitarianism.
When WIPO suggests its staff use “birth attendant” as an alternative to ‘midwife,’ it’s as if it intends to erase the history of a mostly female occupation that had to fight the restrictions of a male-dominated medical profession. Even pets get molested, linguistically speaking, with ‘man’s best friend’ being replaced instead with “a faithful dog.”
While its intellectual property arm reorganises the English language, the broader United Nations is coming in for sustained criticism. UNRWA, its permanent aid mission to Palestine, stands accused of harbouring Hamas terrorists, with the Swiss government cutting its funds to the programme. Separately, hostility to ‘gendered language’ coincides with the dire position of millions of women and girls supposedly under the auspices of the UN.
WIPO’s new guidelines, according to director general Daren Tang, are
Not prescriptive and common sense and clarity of text should always prevail.
Yet when applied, they will work against both clarity and common sense. There’s very little in reality—or ‘lived experience,’ in the jargon—to encourage people outside of WIPO to adopt its language, even businesses working with patents and trademarks. Faced with public bemusement, the logical next step is for the agency to take a more aggressive approach to enforcing the guidelines.
It would be better if the English language was left to change by itself, evolving organically through use and custom, as it has done throughout its history. The WIPO needs to stop imposing its rules, and recognise instead that an Englishman’s home is his castle, or—to use the new UN-friendly jargon—an English national’s home is their castle.
